Going on the Offensive Against Poverty in America

Nov 14, 2012Georgia Levenson Keohane

As part of our series "A Rooseveltian Second Term Agenda," suggestions for how Obama can get serious about combating poverty.

As part of our series "A Rooseveltian Second Term Agenda," suggestions for how Obama can get serious about combating poverty.

Hurricane Sandy’s violence was a tragic reminder of some important truths in American life: climate change matters, government matters, and caring for the vulnerable – for those severely afflicted by circumstances beyond their control – not only matters, it is the essence of who we are as a people. Today, our country’s vulnerable include the 46 million people – nearly one in six – who live in poverty, and 16 million of those are children. This deprivation is particularly grievous in context: earnings for the wealthiest continued to grow last year, while income for the rest stagnated or fell. These levels of poverty and inequality are not only unconscionable, they threaten our economic security.  When it comes to fighting poverty, what do we make of the Obama team’s record and, more importantly, what should be its priorities for the next four years?

The Poverty of the Debate on Poverty

Poverty’s notable absence during the campaign season disappointed and galvanized many progressives who hoped to insert the issue into the election platform and political debates. Those concerns echoed earlier remonstrations that that the president had failed to address poverty over the last four years with the passion or federal muscle promised in his 2008 campaign. “Barack Obama can barely bring himself to say the word ‘poor,’ Bob Herbert wrote this spring in The Grio. Paul Tough, Herbert’s public conscience heir at the New York Times, explains the political conundrum behind the administration’s focus on the economic woes of a broader set of struggling Americans rather than on the poorest per se: “how do you persuade voters to devote tax dollars to help the truly disadvantaged when the middle class is feeling disadvantaged itself?”

While we may long for the soaring rhetoric of 2008, the fact is these broad-based policies have worked. They have not eradicated poverty, but many important domestic programs – the stimulus, in particular, which included new and expanded tax credits, enhanced unemployment insurance, and increased eligibility for food stamps – kept an estimated seven million out of poverty and cushioned against even greater hardship for more than thirty million people already below the federal threshold. Not to mention that health care reform extended coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans (in part by expanding access to Medicaid). The federal poverty measure does not take into account non-cash transfers, including food stamps, housing subsidies, and health care benefits like Medicare and Medicaid. When these are factored in, it appears as though poverty has not increased under Obama’s tenure.

Pivot from Defense to Offense

When it comes to a new kind of war on poverty, the Obama administration must recognize that it now has the freedom – and, arguably, an electoral mandate – to address need in this country in ways that serve the struggling middle class and target programs and policies to help the poor. This is not an either/or proposition. And of course job creation is the primary lever: there is no better way to help all Americans in the next four years and beyond.

In terms of programs to address persistent poverty, however, Obama’s second term agenda must pivot from defense to offense, graduating from “could have been worse” blood staunching to an even greater commitment both to long-term investments in human capital and interim supports that shield children and families from some of the most severe privations of life in poverty.  Here are three places to begin:

(1)  Redouble investment in comprehensive and community-wide approaches to fighting poverty. Tough laments that, while in 2008 Obama called for “billions” for programs like Promise Neighborhoods that are modeled on Harlem Children’s Zone’s and provide a broad swath of interventions for poor children and their families, the administration to date has spent just $100 million on pilot programs in 37 communities across 18 states. Ongoing and expanded support for these kinds of holistic programs in cities across the country would make for a sound investment in human potential, using federal structure and funds to support local and community generated solutions.

(2)  Commit more fully to investments in high quality early childhood education and childcare, which yield substantial returns in the school success and life prospects of low-income children and their working parents. This means expanded tax credits and other financial supports for families paying for childcare. It also means increased funds for proven programs like Head Start and Early Head Start, particularly when state governments across the country, with budgets in crises, have been forced to cut Pre-K programs. Head Start and Early Head Start are chronically underfunded and therefore do not reach many eligible families.

(3)  Reform welfare reform, so that it provides real ‘safety’ for poor families in tough economic times. Although it has long been touted as a success of the Clinton administration, the 1996 welfare reform, which devolved much of TANF to the states and linked cash assistance to stringent work requirements, was structurally flawed. First, it was not indexed for inflation (and is funded at its 1996 level). Second, as a block grant it leaves poor people dependent on (now) cash-strapped states for support. Third, the original work requirements were predicated on the existence of work, not on the stubbornly high unemployment rates of this recession. The federal government must reclaim a greater role in the redesign and provision of temporary assistance for needy families to help keep them out of extreme poverty in the way it has done with other critical strands of the safety net like food stamps and unemployment insurance.

With this second term, the Obama administration has the chance to broaden opportunity and to make vital advances in the fight against poverty.  

Georgia Levenson Keohane is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Read more

Share This

To Solve the Jobs Emergency, Put Government to Work for Us

Nov 14, 2012Jeff Madrick

As part of our series "A Rooseveltian Second Term Agenda," a reminder that creating more good jobs must be the president's top priority.

The presidential victory of Barack Obama was an important vindication for the uses of government. The small-government ideologues were defeated, but now the nation must go farther and recognize government is indeed a job creator.

As part of our series "A Rooseveltian Second Term Agenda," a reminder that creating more good jobs must be the president's top priority.

The presidential victory of Barack Obama was an important vindication for the uses of government. The small-government ideologues were defeated, but now the nation must go farther and recognize government is indeed a job creator.

Let’s begin with the harsh facts: Neither policymakers nor the media fully understand or communicate that America has a jobs emergency. In his victory speech last Tuesday, President Obama did not even cite job creation as one of his four main goals for the new term. Not only is unemployment high, but wages are stagnant and poverty is rising in an economic recovery. The evidence on the creation of low-wage jobs rather than high-wage jobs is almost frightening; the Roosevelt Institute’s own Annette Bernhardt has been a leader on this.

Our mainstream economists are not of much help. Many, though not all, are loathe to blame globalization for low wages in America. We hear almost nothing from them regarding Wall Street’s role in wage suppression, although American business was obsessed with creating rising short-term profits to appease Wall Street, which rewarded such consistency with high stock prices. Add to this the pressures of LBOs, privatizations, and hostile takeover threats. Little is discussed of the role of the Federal Reserve in maintaining a tight monetary policy until the late 1990s, in my view suppressing wages as an objective. Finally, almost nothing is heard of the benefits of adequate demand, except in the current crisis, in creating productivity growth over the long run, even as China and Japan have clearly suffered secularly from a lack of demand.

All of these mainstream economists warmly support the view that skill-biased technology is the main cause of stagnating wages. But such technologies cannot explain the runaway of incomes at the top. Nor can they explain the lesser inequality in Europe, which is also subject to technological change.

In my view, we need a very aggressive, jobs-related agenda. This includes aggressive fiscal stimulus over the next two years amounting to as much as $500 billion and focused on infrastructure, aid to the states, and extending unemployment insurance. These will meet dire needs and also will have the most GDP bang for the buck.

The minimum wage should be raised to end poverty for all those who work full-time, and a living wage, or something close to it, should be demanded for all federal contracts.  

Industrial policies to target critical new technologies should be aggressively pursued, which might require infant industry protection.

Policies to help our trading partners develop a progressive revolution, including higher wages, the right to labor organizing, and decent labor conditions should be emphasized. As reflected in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the opposite is occurring. All emphasis is on protecting investors, very little on workers. This would also go some way to creating a more level playing field in trade.

A federal jobs-creating program, similar to those in the New Deal, should be undertaken, emphasizing construction jobs in public works, teaching, and care workers. Tax rates should be raised sharply on the well-off to ameliorate the temporary increase in the federal deficit. Such taxes will not reduce the GDP multiplier very much.

Wall Street pressure to cut wages must be softened. Business executive compensation must be more closely aligned to long-term results. The tax deduction on borrowing for LBOs, privatizations, and corporate takeovers should be sharply reduced or eliminated.

In addition to these immediate needs, there are three longer-term policies we must pursue. First, in three years or so, America will need a sharp tax increase. Its average tax rate, including federal, state, and local, is 10 percentage points below the OECD average. If that is reduced to five percentage points, it would raise nearly $1 billion more a year. There is little evidence such an increase would impede economic growth.

Second, any such tax increase should only partly be used to pay down the debt. It should be used to shore up major entitlements programs, develop a public option for health care, and increase infrastructure and education spending.

Finally, although educational deficiency is not the primary cause of the current wage problem, it will be in the long run. A major educational equalization campaign is necessary, which includes pre-K for all.

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the Director of the Roosevelt Institute’s Rediscovering Government initiative and author of Age of Greed.

Read more

Share This

Rediscovering Government

All Aboard the Pro-Government Bandwagon

Nov 13, 2012Jeff Madrick

Cracks are beginning to show in conservatives' opposition to government, but progressives still need to make the case for higher tax revenues.

So now everyone is climbing aboard the government-is-necessary bandwagon. I use as my litmus tests David Brooks and Ross Douthat, conservative op-ed columnists of The New York Times.

Cracks are beginning to show in conservatives' opposition to government, but progressives still need to make the case for higher tax revenues.

So now everyone is climbing aboard the government-is-necessary bandwagon. I use as my litmus tests David Brooks and Ross Douthat, conservative op-ed columnists of The New York Times.

To myself and my colleagues, who have been fighting this battle for some time, the Johnny-come-latelys, even among the Democrats, are welcome. I wrote a book called The Case for Big Government, published in 2008, based on lectures I gave back in 2006. A few years before that, I wrote a speech for Senator Ted Kennedy on this subject, largely with historical references about what government did for America in the preceding 200 years, that he gave to considerable notice from his own senatorial colleagues. I was writing a monthly column in The New York Times before that, which persistently sounded this theme. I can’t remember many of the editors being enthused. When I complained about education decline or lack of good wages, one reporter told me to look at how high a proportion of people now owned a home. Many, if not the vast majority, in the media who covered such matters believed in the new “American model,” not to mention the “Washington consensus" -- that is, deregulation, low taxes, and Wall street hegemony.

The financial crisis, Hurricane Sandy, foreclosures, and ultimately the lack of jobs in a Great Recession have changed some of that. We at the Roosevelt Institute started Rediscovering Government with enthusiastic support from Roosevelt’s management and similarly enthusiastic financial support from Bernard Schwartz and a couple of others. We plan to keep sounding the theme about restoring faith in government and take the program to a new level in 2013, bearing down in particular on government and jobs.

Meanwhile, some traditional Republican voices are sounding a bit more constructive about government than they used to. Make no mistake, they are still hesitant, but the language is changing.

David Brooks is now talking about how the big-government-versus-small-government argument is no longer that relevant. He suggests it’s because of the changing composition of the American voting public. “The Pew Research Center,” he writes, “does excellent research on Asian-American and Hispanic values. Two findings jump out. First, people in these groups have an awesome commitment to work. By most measures, members of these groups value industriousness more than whites. Second, they are also tremendously appreciative of government. In survey after survey, they embrace the idea that some government programs can incite hard work, not undermine it; enhance opportunity, not crush it.”

Now, don’t be surprised the Brooks twists American history into something so simplistic it is unrecognizable in order to make the Asian and Hispanic electorate sound like an unprecedented cultural shift in the nation. He says the old Protestant nation had disdain for government and now they are—so he implies—losing their influence. He of course does this kind of simplistic reading of American history from time to time. Who supported the great progressive revolution of the 1930s well before the Asian and Hispanic rise? This kind of idea—that culture explains so much—is generally dangerous.

But the point here is that Brooks is now saying Republicans have to get off the anti-government kick. He goes on: “Moreover, when they look at the things that undermine the work ethic and threaten their chances to succeed, it’s often not government. It’s a modern economy in which you can work more productively, but your wages still don’t rise. It’s a bloated financial sector that just sent the world into turmoil. It’s a university system that is indispensable but unaffordable. It’s chaotic neighborhoods that can’t be cured by withdrawing government programs. For these people, the Republican equation is irrelevant. When they hear Romney talk abstractly about Big Government vs. Small Government, they think: He doesn’t get me or people like me." 

Well, that’s a heck of a breakthrough, even if argued on spurious grounds about how more and more Americans don’t have old-fashioned American cultural roots. Let’s just get away from the cultural stuff. Who elected Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson before Hispanics voted? Who backed the progressive income tax at the start of the 20th century?

Anyway, the conservative punditry is shifting. Ross Douthat, the other conservative regular on the Times op-ed page, has a firmer grasp of historical context than does Brooks. He only partly buys into the “demographic excuse,” as he puts it. As he says, “Republicans are also losing because today’s economic landscape is very different than in the days of Ronald Reagan’s landslides. The problems that middle-class Americans faced in the late 1970s are not the problems of today. Health care now takes a bigger bite than income taxes out of many paychecks. Wage stagnation is a bigger threat to blue-collar workers than inflation. Middle-income parents worry more about the cost of college than the crime rate. Americans are more likely to fret about Washington’s coziness with big business than about big government alone. “

And he recognizes that Hispanics are not a one-issue demographic group. A simple change in immigration policy won’t win them over to the Republicans. He importantly concedes that Latinos tend to see government more as an ally than a foe. And increasingly others in his political camp are talking that way. He notes, “As the American Enterprise Institute’s Henry Olsen writes, it should be possible for Republicans to oppose an overweening and intrusive state while still recognizing that 'government can give average people a hand up to achieve the American Dream.' It should be possible for the party to reform and streamline government while also addressing middle-class anxieties about wages, health care, education and more."

And now some conservatives are even saying the Republicans should give up their resistance to higher rates on upper income Americans. Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard made headlines when he said just that the other day. 

Glenn Hubbard, a former Romney adviser, says we can raise taxes on the rich by putting caps on deductions like mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and business provided health insurance. This deduction cap is gaining adherents among Democrats. But the devil here is in the details, and when one reads more closely what Hubbard has to say, one sees the dangers if one thinks the battle is won. By no means.

One issue is the refusal to raise income tax rates themselves, say the top bracket to 42 or 43 percent. Hubbard claims this reduces incentives. This was the same argument Martin Feldstein made when he said Bill Clinton’s income tax rate increase on the rich would hurt the economy. The Clinton boom soon followed. There is no accepted evidence that higher rates on the rich would dampen economic growth. A research report to that effect was completed and about to to be published by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, and it was suppressed by the Republicans.

The more important point Hubbard makes is that most deficit-cutting should be accomplished by reducing government spending, not tax increases. And to him this necessarily means cutting the safety net and, probably, public investment.

Hubbard makes the critical point, however, as much as he disagrees with it. If Americans wants a bigger government, most Americans, not just the rich, will have to pay. But a lot more of the taxes can come from the rich than he admits. There’s a lot of room to raise taxes in America compared to tax bites in other rich nations. 

The battle for an active, constructive use of government will remain a tough one, even as the conservatives start compromising modestly. And the fight should ultimately be over tax increases, once the economy starts growing rapidly again (and not until then!).

So, for those of us who believe in the constructive purpose of government, we have to show how higher tax revenues can be put to critical work. We can do that. 

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the Director of the Roosevelt Institute’s Rediscovering Government initiative and author of Age of Greed.

Read more

Share This

Millennial Pulse

An Ambitious Foreign Policy Agenda for the First Hundred Days

Nov 13, 2012Leslie Bull

As part of the "Millennial Priorities for the First 100 Days" series, suggestions for how Obama can ramp up his foreign policy agenda.

As part of the "Millennial Priorities for the First 100 Days" series, suggestions for how Obama can ramp up his foreign policy agenda.

Now that President Obama has officially been re-elected to a second term as the 44th president of the United States, it is time to put the campaign behind us and think about what comes next. A president’s first 100 days is traditionally the time during which he is most able to push through new legislation, as his power and influence are at a post-election peak. So what should Obama do with this period of opportunity? This is a large and multi-faceted question, but one area of the president’s agenda must be foreign policy. I am a member of the Millennial generation who is deeply invested in the direction our foreign policy takes and believe the issues listed below are especially important to those of us who will be inheriting the world that President Obama is shaping for us.

  • First, and possibly most obviously, President Obama will have to choose a new Secretary of State. Along with many other members of his administration, Hillary Clinton made it clear long ago that she will be stepping down for President Obama’s second term. The forerunners for possible replacements include John Kerry (whose Senate seat Democrats are no longer worried about losing after unexpected gains in the election) and Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. (who, although capable, has recently been tainted by her association with the administration’s initially false accounts of the attack in Benghazi, Libya.) Whoever he chooses, the new Secretary of State should be nominated as soon as possible to ensure that there is no gap in leadership.
  • Early on, it is crucial that he figure out how tough a stance to take on China. While both candidates competed to be perceived as more hawkish toward China on the campaign trial, experts expect more moderate action than campaign rhetoric would have had us believe. I would like to see a continuation of the perhaps frustrating but smart policy of maintaining a balancing act between curbing China’s problematic behavior (by continuing to bring trade cases against it when it violates free trade agreements), developing good relations with the new Chinese government set to take over soon, and reassuring our allies in the region that although the U.S. must work with China, we are not abandoning them. At this time, China and the U.S. are simply too important to one another’s well being for either to develop an overly antagonistic position unless it becomes absolutely necessary.
  • He must figure out under what circumstances we would intervene militarily to help defend the Syrian people. Neither candidate seriously considered this possibility on the campaign trail. But Foreign Policy predicts this position is likely to be severely tested. As refugee flows increase, atrocities multiply, extremist groups gain traction, and the civil war spills over into neighboring states, Americans may want more decisive action from their leaders.
  • President Obama must also re-commit to development assistance. While traditional development aid certainly has its problems, working to improve the lives of those living in developing countries is one area in which the U.S. is seen as a global leader. Now that President Obama has safely been elected to a second term, the development community believes that he has the chance to be ‘bolder’ on foreign aid. Initiatives to do this would include re-committing to USAID Forward, implementing the agency’s broad reform agenda, defending poverty and humanitarian accounts from budget cuts, expanding the reach of the Feed the Future program to support more smallholder farmers, and continuing the Global Health Initiative. I would also recommend increasing/improving foreign aid to Afghanistan as we further withdraw from a nation that continues to be deeply troubled. Using the enthusiasm of the first 100 days might allow President Obama to push through actions like these when they might otherwise be blocked or pushed aside as unimportant. Even if spending concerns constrain the president’s ability to increase development assistance, he can still improve the efficacy of such programs by focusing on reform instead of expansion.
  • Another issue that President Obama mentioned on the campaign trail, in his acceptance speech, and afterward is the need to work on ending America’s dependence on foreign oil. The fact that he has so frequently brought up this issue means that he has created the expectation that he will deal with it soon. Given that he has talked about the bipartisan nature of the issue, a good place to start would be to reach out to Republicans on the issue during the unprecedented period of post-election goodwill between the two parties (as evidenced by the unusually conciliatory and cooperative language coming out of Republican congressional leaders). We might also see legislation to further cut subsidies for oil companies and investment in clean energy alternatives (mostly as a publicity-generating measure) in order to make it clear that this is an issue President Obama actually plans to tackle during his second term.
  • Start garnering political support for a negotiated solution for Iran’s nuclear program and develop the process and substance for an agreement that restrains it. Given that Iran is unlikely to give us a reason for military intervention in the next 100 days, there is still room for diplomacy, but U.S. unilateral action will not have nearly as strong an impact as internationally supported action will. Given how overwhelmingly in favor of President Obama our international allies were during the election, now is a good time to leverage their post-election relief into unprecedented coordination on Iran and setting a concrete agenda for limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Although this is certainly not an exhaustive list, it is enough to show that President Obama needs to do a lot of tone-setting on foreign policy in the beginning of his second term. At a very general level, the president needs to figure out how hawkish a foreign policy he wants to pursue. He certainly doesn’t want to be perceived as weak, but neither would it be prudent to be overly aggressive when we have so many troubles at home. Hopefully President Obama will use his first 100 days to provide clarity about where he stands on these pressing foreign policy issues. However, he shouldn’t forget that now may be the time he is most able to let his inner progressive off the leash and incorporate that into the foreign policy tone he chooses to set.

Leslie Bull is the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow in Defense and Diplomacy and a senior political science major at Yale University.

 

Barack Obama image via Shutterstock.com.

Read more

Share This

Millennial Pulse

Showing Leadership By Putting Graduates to Work

Nov 13, 2012Joshua McKinney

As part of the "Millennial Priorities for the First 100 Days" series, a recognition of the need to address student debt levels and unemployed graduates.

As part of the "Millennial Priorities for the First 100 Days" series, a recognition of the need to address student debt levels and unemployed graduates.

In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was faced with a widespread catastrophe. The Depression had given birth to shattering rates of unemployment, bank failures, and a widespread loss of confidence in government. From the start, FDR knew that what the people needed most was reassurance that under his leadership, they could weather the storm. In his inaugural address on a gloomy March morning, FDR said, "This nation asks for action, and action now. Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require." Soon thereafter, he set a high standard for new presidents during his first 100 days, launching a raft of New Deal reforms over his first three months in office.

With a laundry list of issues and a divided congress, President Obama faces hurdles in acting and acting quickly. In the three months following his second inauguration ceremony, his actions need to provide the country with reassurance that this ship is moving in the right direction under his leadership. Perhaps his most important task will be addressing this through the lens of education policy.

Education has long been the primary driver of upward mobility in America, a fact that is truer now than ever before. Yet as the demands on schools to impart 21st century skills have increased, school quality has not kept pace across the country, resulting in an ever-widening achievement gap. Our primary and secondary schools are tested to death but provide little to no growth in our national education numbers. According to NPR’s Claudio Sanchez, “the class of 2012 scored the lowest average SAT reading scores since 1972” while also managing to take a nine-point dive in writing. The only area where we saw a national improvement was in math, where it stands only five points higher than 40 years ago. Overall, College Board, which commissions the SAT, reports that six in ten college students are not ready for college work. Students are now faced with the decision to enter college unprepared or not enter college at all. The ACT reported even more dismal numbers: only a quarter of the high schoolers who took the test were college ready.

What comes of those students who enter into college unprepared? According to Complete College America, about 41 percent of the high school graduates who enter college are required to take remedial courses when they start college. Even more alarming is that two-thirds of these students fail to earn their degree in six years, some accumulating unreasonably high amounts of college loan debt.

What happens to the students who pass on college altogether? Armed with a high school diploma and little to no marketable skills, these students all to often face unemployment.

Is graduating college in four years the remedy, as many proclaim? It helps, but many college students are unemployed as well. The common problem for all three sets of students is the lack of skills – a problem which has also become a crisis in America.

To expect President Obama and Sec. Duncan to address every aspect of the system as a whole within the first hundred days is unreasonable. We can, however, expect them to address the increasingly alarming student loan bubble and the skills crisis.

Since 1978, average college tuition has skyrocketed by over 900 percent, while grants and scholarships continue to be slashed and only given to a select group of students. The result? Students are forced to mortgage their futures with student loan debt. This, accompanied with dismal job numbers for college graduates, has many worried that graduates will default on their loans, causing the bubble to burst and result in seismic shocks through every facet of American life. It is paramount that this bubble be addressed by the national government or the effects could cripple the already fragile economy.

One way to address this would be to get more young people to work. This could be done by revitalizing our skills training across the nation and investing in current skills training organizations such as yearup. If the president uses this approach, he can simultaneously address the skills crisis and the student loan debt crisis. But this project is more complex than simply increasing funding. It would have to begin with a role change for many of the community colleges around the nation. This is not to call for them to become full-fledged technical schools, nor should they carry identical curriculums to that of four-year institutions. They should, however, increase the number of classes available for training local people in the skills they need to do the jobs available in the area around them. Since the budgets of many community colleges are strained already, President Obama could provide tax incentives to companies that send trained workers to teach classes at their surrounding community colleges. This is imperfect in many ways, but could very well work if the nuances are worked out. 

President Obama has 100 days to reassure the people that his leadership will move this country in the right direction, just as FDR did in 1933. If he can solve the student loan debt bubble while addressing the skills crisis, he will send a solid signal to the American people that this country is really moving forward. 

Joshua Mckinney is the Senior Fellow in Education Policy for the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network and a political science and philosophy double major at Morehouse College.

 

Barack Obama image via Shutterstock.com.

Read more

Share This

Millennial Pulse

Where Sandy Meets the Election: Tackling Climate Change in a Second Term

Nov 13, 2012Hannah Locke

As part of the "Millennial Priorities for the First 100 Days" series,

When Hurricane Sandy decimated the East Coast, laying waste to coastal towns, flooding main streets, and shutting down power for 8 million people, the U.S.’s 40-year inaction on climate change slapped us in the face. If there was ever a wake-up call, this is it. We can no longer afford to argue whether or not global climate change will affect us. It can, it will, and it already has.

As part of the "Millennial Priorities for the First 100 Days" series,

When Hurricane Sandy decimated the East Coast, laying waste to coastal towns, flooding main streets, and shutting down power for 8 million people, the U.S.’s 40-year inaction on climate change slapped us in the face. If there was ever a wake-up call, this is it. We can no longer afford to argue whether or not global climate change will affect us. It can, it will, and it already has.

With our climate at a crossroads, I call upon newly re-elected President Obama to take necessary, bold action. We must prepare ourselves for the effects of the climate change we’ve already committed and, most importantly, we must revolutionize the way we operate. The Millennial generation will not accept the status quo, and we will not watch the newly re-elected Congress and president squander the viability of our future resources. We demand that our future not be short-changed for the political profits of today.

Our wealth as a nation blinded us to the destabilization already suffered by the majority of the world. We are no longer exempt—our tax base won’t stop the rising seas, our fortunes won’t halt the positive feedback cycles undermining our agricultural, aquacultural, and economic systems.

But our collective action can. We must, as a nation, commit to reinvesting our time, energy, and financial resources in building an economy that does not sacrifice the ecological stability of the planet. This means admitting that the dinosaur industries that currently dominate our economy aren’t sustainable economically, socially, or environmentally. This means that we must not fear the enormity of the task at hand—we need not only to overhaul our fossil fuel addiction, but also to challenge our Western perceptions of development.

This is not to say we are powerless. We remain the most innovative, well-funded, and resource-rich country in the world. We possess in our communities leaders who envision an equitable future and a private sector with all of the inventive thinking to construct efficient ways of delivering clean energy. We have bountiful prairies, mountains, watersheds, and coastal shores that, if protected and managed properly, could easily provide for the country.

Here are the first steps President Obama can take to a pragmatic, equitable future:

1) Dismantle inequitable subsidies: Oil, coal, and corn subsidies mean that market prices reflect a higher supply than is realistic. Subsidies also fuel colossally inefficient systems that waste precious natural resources and disconnect the consumer from the producer. Stripping subsidies away from large industries will provide incentives both in the private sector (in the research and development of cleaner, more reliable forms of energy and agriculture) and in the consumer households (by encouraging efficiency and empowering consumer choice). Taxpayer money, currently used for subsidizing these industries may be used to finance grid overhaul, public education programs, retrofitting efforts in older cities, off-shore wind farms, etc. President Obama’s administration should work with legislative allies to deconstruct antiquated subsidies in order to better invest in an economy of the future.

2) Reinvest in cities and public infrastructure: By reinvesting in efficient public transport and inner-city education programs, as well as restructuring tax and utility systems to reward high-density communities, cities could become beacons of sustainability. The strongest model of sustainability promotes environmental, social, and economic sustainability equally—we must be careful not to disenfranchise current communities for the sake of old models of environmentalism. Ground-up, neighborhood-based movements utilizing community strengths to tackle community weaknesses combat social and environmental inequities. Urban agriculture, watershed management, and diverse economies are proven steps in the movement toward sustainable cities. President Obama must support energy policies and infrastructure reform that would allow for state and local governments to exercise creativity and innovation.

3) Create jobs through sustainable energy systems: Climate change has been wrongly, and successfully, framed as a choice between the abstract “environment” and the concrete impact of the “economy.” But by reinvesting in long-term, renewable, clean energy (wind, geothermal, sun, cellulosic ethanol), the United States can create high-paying, steady employment while reducing the environmental health costs commonly associated with fossil fuel industries. Why remove a mountain for minimal amounts of coal at the high cost of community health when you can install wind turbines, protect the water, air, and land of the local community, and promote long-term job stability?

4) Ban the XL Keystone Pipeline: Allison Rich investigated the claims of the pipeline’s proponents and found that the proposed project makes no sense economically, socially, or environmentally. None of the profits would stay here. The construction jobs are menial and short-term, a band-aid economic solution to a country that needs economic surgery. We’d get all the pollution but not a drop of the profits.

5) Introduce cap and trade legislation to regulate greenhouse gases: A market of transferable pollution permits with expiration dates would distribute a limited amount of permits (potentially through lottery or auction). The number of permits would originally be determined not by current use, but by what the acceptable amount of pollution is that proves least disruptive. In our case, the number of permits would need to be radically low—I suggest a moderate amount at first, allowing approximately 60 percent of current amount of GHG pollution, with expiration dates. The private sector would be forced to invest in research and development of more efficient, less wasteful practices, and dinosaur industries (those that could not survive without cheap fossil fuels) would give way to more sustainable consumption patterns.

6) Assume responsibility: In order for any of these crucial steps to be taken, we must first recognize the following: The science is indisputable. Hurricane Sandy is only the beginning. As a resource-rich and wealthy country, we’ve been living in a falsely cushioned world. Per capita, we are the most impactful society on this planet. It is our responsibility to quit our selfish behavior. The president should make a public statement regarding not only our disproportionate role in catalyzing climate change, but also our determination to become a more environmentally equitable country.

We’ve waited long enough. We’ve elected you, Mr. President. Now let’s get to work.

Hannah Locke is the Senior Fellow in Energy & the Environment for the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Networkn and a senior environmental studies and biological sciences double major at Goucher College.

 

Barack Obama image via Shutterstock.com.

Read more

Share This

Millennial Pulse

The Fight for Health Care Reform Isn't Over Yet

Nov 13, 2012Rahul Rekhi

As part of the "Millennial Priorities for the First 100 Days" series, a call for President Obama to finish the health care overhaul he began with the Affordable Care Act.

As part of the "Millennial Priorities for the First 100 Days" series, a call for President Obama to finish the health care overhaul he began with the Affordable Care Act.

While the principle focus of this year’s presidential campaign was clearly the economy, the election carried more profound implications for the future of American health care then any other area of policy. The choice was clear: would we see the reaffirmation of the Affordable Care Act and with that, an opportunity for its provisions to be phased in at last? Or would we see a rapid repeal and systemic overhaul under the ascendant Romney administration? With the reelection of President Obama, the signature health care legislation of his first term is secure. But to truly reform our health care system, he still has much more work to do in his second term.

Because of President Obama’s historic win, he will be able to fully implement provisions that extend health coverage to over 30 million Americans, end denial of care on the basis of pre-existing conditions, and allow young Americans nationwide to remain covered while continuing their education. But despite this leap forward, significant challenges to our health care system remain. Though the Affordable Care Act tackled the coverage problem, concerns about ever-rising health care costs--and the concomitant budgetary pressures--remain at the forefront. Moreover, debates about end-of-life care, prevention, and the proper role of medical technology in our health care system remain unresolved.

Some of these health policy concerns will take years to tackle. Others must necessarily extend beyond even President Obama’s term limit. But there should be a particular focus on issues regarding health science and technology that we must tackle in the first 100 days, while the electoral mandate remains clear.

The consensus among health economists of all stripes is clear: medical technology is the single most significant driver of rising health care costs in America. These advancements, while making significant gains in extending our lifespans and improving the quality of life for the U.S., simultaneously impose significant cost burdens and threaten the fiscal sustainability of our health care system. The Affordable Care Act takes steps to address this concern, most notably by funding so-called “comparative effectiveness research,” a systematic means of assessing the therapeutic efficacy of clinical treatments and weeding out those that exhibit no health benefits despite their substantial costs. This isn’t rationing—it’s rational.

However, due to political pressures, “Obamacare” contained no provision or mechanism for the results of such comparative effectiveness research to be implemented in a meaningful way. Even the one model that it did call for—the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a “Federal Reserve” of medicine—has been effectively neutered by congressional officials and only served an advisory role. If we are to truly and systematically address the cost burdens of health technology in a meaningful way, what we need is a form of health technology assessment, such as the one pioneered by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom. Until then, we will have a patchwork policy at best, and a downright nonexistent one at worst.

Realizing the benefits of these technologies will also necessitate a regulatory overhaul. Despite (occasional?) failures and controversies, the Food and Drug Administration deserves great acclaim for helping to ensure the safety of the American patient for the last century. But the critical nature of this mandate does not obviate the benefits that could be derived from a deep overhaul of the FDA approval process. For instance, there is ample opportunity to bring the FDA into the 21st century, with opportunities to authorize statistical modeling techniques that allow for smaller, leaner, and quicker clinical trials guidelines, and by mandating that the results of all drug trails be published online. These are measures with potentially broad bipartisan support.

Policy has also fallen short in the development of these technologies. Case in point: funding for the National Institutes of Health has largely remained flat in recent years, even under the Obama administration. Yet the importance of biomedical research in maintaining America’s edge in innovation cannot be overstated. It’s no coincidence that over half of the Nobel Laureates in medicine have come from within our borders; it is this edge on health science and technology that has allowed life-saving treatments such as statins, angioplasty, and MRIs into the clinic. As other nations begin to ramp up their investments in biomedical research, it is critical that the U.S. not lose its position of global leadership.

These health policy areas represent means for the president to reaffirm his vision for our health care system. Admittedly, with a looming fiscal cliff, persistently high unemployment, and issues of energy and immigration beginning to enter the national spotlight, turning back to health care may carry with it great political risk. However, while the Affordable Care Act was initially highly polarizing and contentious across the electorate, there is emerging evidence that as its provisions are phased in, support among Americans is growing—and fast. Reaching across the aisle early with these bipartisan policies to further advance our nation’s health care can cement the president’s principle legacy, setting the tone for another transformative term. Ultimately, their impacts will extend well beyond the next 100 days or even the next two years, for the path to a truly 21st century health care system lies ahead.

Rahul Rekhi is a student at Rice University and the Senior Fellow in Health Care Policy for the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network.

 

Barack Obama image via Shutterstock.com.

Read more

Share This

Millennial Pulse

The Green Side of the Fiscal Cliff

Nov 13, 2012Wilson Parker

As part of the "Millennial Priorities for the First 100 Days" series, a call to tackle the budget and climate change at the same time.

As part of the "Millennial Priorities for the First 100 Days" series, a call to tackle the budget and climate change at the same time.

On last Tuesday night, a triumphant President Obama thanked supporters in Chicago. “We know in our hearts,” he said, “that for the United States of America, the best is yet to come.” But as the elation of the moment subsided, many supporters undoubtedly began to ask a simple question: how? What is President Obama going to do in the next four years to move “the task of perfecting our union” forward?

For supporters who were listening closely, the text of his speech contained some answers to that question. In the next two months, President Obama and Congress will face the automatic series of spending cuts and tax increases that has been dubbed the “fiscal cliff,” a sudden package of austerity that, according to a report from Congressional Budget Office, is likely to send us into a double dip recession, causing GDP growth to plummet to -0.5 percent and sending unemployment over 9 percent.

In perhaps the most important line of his speech – “We want our children to live in an America that isn't burdened by debt, that isn't weakened by inequality, that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet” – President Obama gave us some clue as to how he intends to avert the fiscal cliff and articulated his administration’s greatest challenges and ambitions. With these words, Obama may be tacitly endorsing an idea that has been floating around in DC policy circles for some time: addressing the fiscal cliff by, among other things, implementing a carbon tax.

Carbon pricing schemes have been wildly popular among progressive policy experts for a long time. For instance, the Center for American Progress included such a scheme in a 2007 report entitled “Capturing the Energy Opportunity,” which was published as part of an economic plan for the next administration. The report concluded that “once businesses have to factor the cost of emitting CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) into their bottom lines, the power of the marketplace will start to push toward efficiency, low-carbon fuels, [and] renewable energy.” (“The Price is Right” also discusses the budgetary and economic effects of carbon pricing.) But a carbon price is finally beginning to enjoy support on both sides of the aisle. Even Grover Norquist is now amenable to a carbon tax in lieu of letting income tax cuts expire. In a brilliant summary of this idea, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein writes:

Let’s say you believe there is a 20 percent chance that global warming is anything other than a hoax. In that case, you are indifferent to carbon, with only a slight concern that the stuff might be catastrophic. But you are not indifferent to work and income, which everyone wants more of. So given a choice between taxing work and income on one hand, or taxing carbon on the other, the preference is clear: Tax carbon, especially as part of a deal to lower overall tax rates.

Some conservative groups and economists have already made this argument. Martin Feldstein, who was the top economist in Ronald Reagan’s administration, proposed a carbon tax in the Wall Street Journal back in 1992. When the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, had to submit a deficit-reduction plan as part of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation’s 2011 Fiscal Summit Solutions Initiative, the four scholars in charge of the project included a $26-per-ton carbon tax in order “to address environmental concerns in a more market-friendly manner.” Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard economist who advises Mitt Romney’s campaign team, has written that there is “broad consensus” among wonks for a global carbon tax.

That’s what makes this idea so exciting. Klein described this idea as “just a dream,” but now that the president has identified debt and global warming as top priorities – and, tellingly, mentioned them together in the same sentence – this dream is that much closer to becoming a reality. There are still many, many obstacles to a plan like this being adopted. But with the reelection of the president, progressives who hope for action on climate change and the debt now have reason for some cautious optimism.

In addition to debt and climate change, President Obama also identified the equally damaging but far more insidious problem of being “weakened by income inequality.” As challenging as climate change and the national debt are, policy solutions are available: if you want a balanced budget, raise taxes and/or cut spending (but not in a recession!); if you want less climate change, emit less carbon by creating a disincentive. Addressing income inequality, however, requires having a serious conversation about the role of government in our society and, indeed, the nature of our society itself. In a fantastic op-ed for the New York Times, Chrystia Freeland explains what could happen in a society that does not address severe income inequality: “the 1 percent pulls away from everyone else and pursues an economic, political and social agenda that will increase that gap even further — ultimately destroying the open system that made America rich and allowed its 1 percent to thrive in the first place.”

President Obama has already made some progress, most notably by repairing the gaping hole in our social safety net that allowed more than 40 million Americans to go without health insurance. In his speech and on the campaign trail, he has signaled that he is willing to fight for better schools for children of all backgrounds and a tax code that asks the wealthy to pay their fair share. But those commitments have yet to be turned from rhetoric into reality.

Ultimately, Barack Obama will be remembered as a good president if he can solve our nation’s obvious problems: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the lack of access to affordable healthcare, climate change, and the national debt. But he will be remembered as a great president if, like his forebears Franklin Roosevelt and (yes) Ronald Reagan, his ideas succeed in transforming and reforming the role government plays in our society.

Wilson Parker is a member of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network's chapter at UNC Chapel Hill, where he is studying economics. He serves as the co-director of the chapter's Economic Policy Center.

 

Barack Obama image via Shutterstock.com.

Read more

Share This

Voters Demand a Progressive Second Term Agenda

Nov 13, 2012Felicia Wong

As part of our series "A Rooseveltian Second Term Agenda," a call for progressives to seize the moment after Election Day.

As part of our series "A Rooseveltian Second Term Agenda," a call for progressives to seize the moment after Election Day.

Last week’s election results weren’t just a win for the president. Across the board, voters went to the polls and registered their support for progressive values, supporting needed tax increases, passing marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans, and giving a candidate who ran on a platform of proactive government and a strong safety net a second term. The message was clear: despite an economy that continues to recover too slowly, the direction that progressives are taking the country in is the right one.

The polling we have done with Democracy Corps makes it plain – voters don’t want austerity or cuts in Medicare and Social Security. They want to fix the economy with long-term investments in infrastructure and a focus on jobs. And they want solutions – like raising taxes on the well-off and reforming the financial industry – that can raise the revenue to pay for it. As Hurricane Sandy made apparent, we need to update the country’s infrastructure, and we can put people back to work doing it.

So our job has just begun. Now is when we really have to roll up our sleeves and work to achieve an ambitious agenda. The politics won’t necessarily be much easier than they were over the last four years. But with a Democratic president, a Democratic majority in the Senate, and an electorate strongly behind us, progressives have an opportunity to seize over the next four years.

Over the next few weeks, Roosevelt Institute Fellows and staff will weigh in with their thoughts on what our national agenda should look like. While we might differ on some of the specifics, we all agree on basic values and goals: reducing inequality, creating jobs, kick-starting economic growth, building a community among the American people, and regaining trust in both the private sector through functioning markets and in the government and our political system.

On the eve of a second Obama term, and with some fundamental economic and political choices before us, we are proud to be in this historic moment together, Our goals are ambitious. We believe that our ideas can have real impact. As President Franklin Roosevelt put it 80 years ago, “The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation.” Nothing could be truer of our times. Progressives must lead the way.

Felicia Wong is President and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute.

Read more

Share This

The New Guard

Obama’s Second Term: Time for More Ambitious Foreign Policy

Nov 8, 2012Brad Bosserman

The first term was spent playing defense. Now it's time to get on the offensive with an ambitious foreign policy agenda.

Tuesday night’s election results were a powerful endorsement of President Obama’s leadership. Though exit polls seem to indicate that foreign affairs played only a minor role in the decisions of most voters, the president has a remarkable opportunity to reassert American leadership in his second term by outlining and executing an ambitious global agenda.

The first term was spent playing defense. Now it's time to get on the offensive with an ambitious foreign policy agenda.

Tuesday night’s election results were a powerful endorsement of President Obama’s leadership. Though exit polls seem to indicate that foreign affairs played only a minor role in the decisions of most voters, the president has a remarkable opportunity to reassert American leadership in his second term by outlining and executing an ambitious global agenda.

The last four years have been characterized by a largely safe and conservative foreign policy that was focused on cleaning up two wars that his administration inherited and addressing a global terrorism threat in need of containment. For the most part, the president has done an admirable job on both fronts and has exercised deft, competent, and thoughtful leadership across a range of foreign policy decisions. However, when given opportunities to make big, ambitious plays, he has consistently chosen to play it safe. The response to the Arab Awakenings could be much more powerful, with policy leadership and a political push equal to the historic opportunities in the region. The European monetary union remains in perpetual near-crisis, but the president has elected to play a supporting role. The U.S. trade agenda, most notably the Trans-Pacific Partnership, has made slow and steady progress, but has remained largely absent from the president’s broad narrative of promoting American values and strategic vision.

In order to accomplish this, the administration will need to fully come to terms with the “rise of the rest” and ascension of middle-income countries on the world’s stage. Strong American leadership in this new world will require reimagining the architecture of global governance. Some of this is underway with the increased reliance on the G20 rather than the G8. But more will have to be done to incorporate other nations substantively into the fabric of the IMF, World Bank, and Security Council. Additionally, we will need to craft new institutions that can coordinate collective action and truly make the United States an indispensable super partner in addition to being a super power. The U.S. is well positioned to lead this movement, but it must choose to seize that mantel and responsibility.

In President Obama’s second term, he should also double down on expanding the benefits of trade, openness, and economic growth in the developing world. There is perhaps nothing that can do more to solidify and secure long-term U.S. interests abroad than to help usher in a new world of opportunities for everyday people living in volatile and tumultuous regions. Families in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East want what everyone wants: decent jobs, safe communities, educational opportunities, and a real path for their children to realize their full potential. Simon Rosenberg has observed, “FDR and his fellow progressives took on the challenges of their day and built the domestic programs and international institutions that ushered in an era of unrivaled prosperity and stability.” The challenge facing today’s progressives is no less important.

This administration has talked up many foreign policy accomplishments over the last four years, but the president has a real opportunity over the next four to leave a lasting legacy by reasserting a 21st century liberal internationalism. With the partisan congressional dynamics largely unchanged after the election, it is certainly possible that gridlock over domestic policy will create incentives for the president to focus more attention on a more ambitious foreign policy. I hope that he does.

Bradley Bosserman is a member of the DC chapter of the Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline and a Foreign Policy Analyst at NDN and the New Policy Institute, where he directs the Middle East and North Africa Initiative.

Read more

Share This

Pages